Demotion commotion: First Pluto, now fruit flies?

Would a fruit fly by any other name be as useful? Geneticists may find out, …

When we recently considered Pluto's demotion, one of the points we made was that most human definitions—including ones commonly used by scientists—are attempts to impose order on a natural world that's both boisterously chaotic and completely indifferent to what we might find convenient.

The latest example of this principle comes from biology, where the organization that handles species designations is considering a reorganization of some insects that might ultimately expel everyone's favorite fruit fly from the genus Drosophila.

Nature News has the details, which we'll summarize briefly. The Drosophila genus, which includes D. melanogaster, has been used in genetic studies for over a century and now contains nearly 1,500 species. Molecular data now suggests the genus contains species that don't belong, and that some sub-groups deserve elevation to genus status.

Any reorganization, by tradition, would have to keep the first species identified (Drosophila funebris) in the genus. Unfortunately, the subgenus that contains D. melanogaster isn't the one with D. funebris in it, so melanogaster would have to be elevated to a genus with an entirely different name.

That leaves two rather unappealing choices. The first is to ditch tradition, dethrone D. funebris, and make some other Drosophila species the designated type, choosing it in a way that keeps the lab strains part of the same genus. A proposal to do just that was just rejected on the grounds that it would involve moving too many species.

That leaves us with the unpleasant alternative: rename Drosophila melanogaster to Sophophora melanogaster. This means updating hundreds of databases and dozens of genome sequences, and dealing with the fact that most existing scientific literature refers to this species by a different name.

Although the reorganization is dictated by scientific findings, the actual naming is defined by tradition, so there isn't a right or wrong answer on how to deal with it. But it would be nice to see this sorted out, since the obvious unofficial choice—having a genus name that's completely ignored by the people who actually work on the organism—seems rather stupid.

Ars Science Video >

Apollo: The Greatest Leap

In honor of the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Apollo Program, Ars Technica brings you an in depth look at the Apollo missions through the eyes of the participants.

Apollo: The Greatest Leap

Apollo: The Greatest Leap

In honor of the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Apollo Program, Ars Technica brings you an in depth look at the Apollo missions through the eyes of the participants.

We need to elect politicians that will reign in this scientific activism. Think of all the tax payers money they are waisting by outdating our children's text books. Between them and and the Texas school board we will all be broke.

How about... starting Jan 1. they drop the Drosophila genus entirely and group the flies into new genuses instead? They'd still have to update the databases and sequences for continuity (otherwise "hey, there's no D. melanogaster data after 2010!"). But at least for papers, it could just be generally known that any use of Drosophila is flatly outdated -- which is less confusing that having separate before-and-after versions of the genus with different sizes and canonical types.

Does it really hurt anything to leave Drosophilia, or even just D. melanogaster, as is as a deprecated but acceptable popular nomenclature(s), and maintain a separate "official" nomenclature in the background? I know it would offend the purists, but sometimes you just gotta bow to the weight of history.

Does it really hurt anything to leave Drosophilia, or even just D. melanogaster, as is as a deprecated but acceptable popular nomenclature(s)

But this isn't a discussion about popular nomenclature. The popular nomenclature is "fruit fly." This is scientific nomenclature, and yes, unfortunately that does have to be pretty specific and accurate.

Whatever the scientific name, I suspect folks will keep calling the boogers "fruit flies", even though they're not fruits nor are they flies. Just as a hedgehog is not a hedge nor is it a hog. And a buffalo is actually a bison, and a seahorse is certainly not a horse, of course, nor a roadapple an apple. Whether I may turn myself from an ass to a buffoon remains to be seen.

Whatever the scientific name, I suspect folks will keep calling the boogers "fruit flies", even though they're not fruits nor are they flies. Just as a hedgehog is not a hedge nor is it a hog. And a buffalo is actually a bison, and a seahorse is certainly not a horse, of course, nor a roadapple an apple. Whether I may turn myself from an ass to a buffoon remains to be seen.

This means updating hundreds of databases and dozens of genome sequences, and dealing with the fact that most existing scientific literature refers to this species by a different name.

Whats the big problem? Can't everyone who works with the species just remember that S. melanogaster used to be D. melanogaster, and the databases get updated to add a synonym ? Otoh, changing the type for Drosophila would be a terrible, terrible idea and would completely screw up the nomenclature of that genus. I used to deal with really irritating and vexing taxonomic issues on a regular basis, and this particular situation -- where there's no change in the concept of a taxon, but a simple one-time reassignment of a species to another genus -- is a completely trivial issue in my field (conservation biology). Am I missing more to the story?

one of the points we made was that most human definitions—including ones commonly used by scientists—are attempts to impose order on a natural world that's both boisterously chaotic and completely indifferent to what we might find convenient.

I also see no problem with renaming Drosophila melanogaster to Sophophora melanogaster. This wouldn't be the first time a species has been put in the wrong genus, and it seems like the main controversy in this case is solely due to the ubiquity of D. melanogaster studies...

The scientific community will get over it. Update the name and as many databases as you can, adding corrections, addenda, and footnotes to situations where it is difficult to alter the original, and start teaching students using the new name. Sure, there will be a slightly chaotic transition time in which publications may present us with a lot of "Sophophora melanogaster (formerly Drosophila) blah blah blah...", but it probably wouldn't be for too long or be too painful.

Despite the fact that this may seem trivial, I can understand the desire to get it right. When I used to work on an E. coli genetics database, we'd do genomic comparisons with related species. Now, E. coli is closely related to the various Samonella species, but something interesting happened in the past: somehow, all the E. coli got lumped together as one species, even though they may differ by a megabase (~25% of their genome), whereas each subtle variation on Samonella got designated as its own species. When you have tools that work in terms of species (i.e. how many species have a similar gene?), this tends to really skew the results.

...and I agree with the other posters: make the change. The scientists will adjust. Some textbooks still call it adrenaline, but we all know what they mean.

Yeah, that can lead to lots of confusion. Worse still is when, say, a taxonomist decides some individuals in one species should be lumped together with some individuals in another species to form a third species, but he still keeps the two original species as entities even though the concepts have changed. But as far as I can tell, there's no issue at all like this with Drosophila. They just started calling adrenaline 'epinephrine'.

It should be renamed. There shouldn't be too much confusion as long as articles mention that <i>Sophophora melanogaster</i> used to be called <i>Drosophila melanogaster.</i> If some people continue to refer to the species as Drosophila (and they will), it's not like we won't know what they're talking about.

I'd be surprised if any school district decided to update their textbooks solely because Drosophila was renamed. How many old biology textbooks still in use talk about the five kingdoms? How many chemistry textbooks name call hex-2-ene by it's old name, 2-hexene? The IUPAC naming rules were updated 17 years ago, and the old names are still used sometimes. Those name changes were confusing, but this one shouldn't be.

Why would we need to update databases? No one updated tomato in the databases when we changed its genus.

The article pointed out that the Fruit Fly is used extensively in biology labs for studying genetic mutations and such, meaning there's a dearth of information out there about them. I don't think the same could be said for tomatoes.

Wheels of Confusion wrote:

Well actually they are flies, and with certain strains in some experiments you can get them to be fruits too. Though probably not the kind of fruit you're talking about.

Haha!

Singularity42 wrote:

I deserve replies. I pay for you ad-blockers.

I think I speak for many when I say, "No one cares, you attention-whoring douche."

I stand corrected. Does that also mean that the genus switch for tomatoes occurred at a time when there wasn't a pile of prior research that needed to be updated? I was just trying to point out that Fruit Flies are used extensively for this type of research, which makes having to update said research with the new name a big chore, per the article.

Why not just expand the Kingdom, Phyllum, etc, by adding a "Lab designation" to the very end. Keep calling them D. whatever's, but tag some with certain lab designations and others with whatever. You keep jacking with something's genetics enough, and it'll turn into it's own Kingdom, eventually. So, this will be a continual problem. Once we genetically map a tons of species, they're going to want to toss out all classifications and re-organize everything based on closest genetic matches anyways. It's just one of those growing pains.

Just go ahead with the rename and get it over with. Plenty of things have been both re-named and re-classified in the past and it will continue to happen as we get more and better research into "what they really are". Appropriate reference works can easily mention current and past name(s) for historical purposes.

Does that also mean that the genus switch for tomatoes occurred at a time when there wasn't a pile of prior research that needed to be updated?

I think plant taxonomists generally agreed on the name change around the turn of the century, but from MAT Kinase's post, it sounds like the news didn't filter down to the genome people until the last few years (the tomato genome sequencing project began in 2004).

Using invalid names isn't unheard of --tomato is actually an example -- but it's generally done because one name gained universal acceptance, then someone stumbled across an obscure, earlier published name for that taxon. (The first published name is supposed to have precedence according to the rules of biological nomenclature). Ignoring naming rules for the convenience of another field might possibly be acceptable in this one case, but whatever argument holds for Drosophila is going to be equally valid in numerous other situations, too (plus, I still don't see what the problem is in the first place).

I read that Pluto is still a planet according to astrologers. So at least one group of people disagree with the demotion. I am not sure though who will step up to save the poor fruit fly from being cast down the totem pole. ;-)

Why would we need to update databases? No one updated tomato in the databases when we changed its genus.

The article pointed out that the Fruit Fly is used extensively in biology labs for studying genetic mutations and such, meaning there's a dearth of information out there about them. I don't think the same could be said for tomatoes.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."edit: guh, i hate it that bbcode doesn't show up in quotes. I'm referencing the use of the word "dearth".

Why not just designated it God's chosen one and make it illegal to kill it at any stage (because it's always innocent!). Name it Fetus Babia.

If you are trying to be funny, epic fail. If you are trying to make some intelligent point, epic fail. If you think it has some relevance to the article, epic fail.

Maybe not in the best taste, but I thought it was funny! It is pertinent to use of research subjects/materials in biology. Obviously you have a problem with the poster's political views, but that's different than "epic fail."

Pluto is still a planet to many astronomers as well. Only four percent of the IAU voted on this, and most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. Stern and like-minded scientists favor a broader planet definition that includes any non-self-luminous spheroidal body in orbit around a star. The spherical part is important because objects become spherical when they attain a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning they are large enough for their own gravity to pull them into a round shape. This is a characteristic of planets and not of shapeless asteroids and Kuiper Belt Objects. Pluto meets this criterion and is therefore a planet. Under this definition, our solar system has 13 planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris.